Tag Archives: judge-walker

CBS ‘Early Show’ Ignores Accusations of Bias Against Judge Behind Prop 8 Ruling

While Thursday reports on both ABC’s Good Morning America and NBC’s Today featured Proposition 8 supporters questioning the impartiality of California Federal Judge Vaughn Walker’s decision to strike down the state’s referendum defending traditional marriage, CBS’s Early Show failed to provide any such arguments. On Good Morning America, correspondent Terry Moran explained: “Opponents of same-sex marriage vowed to fight on and blasted the judge for, they said, letting personal interests trump his legal duty.” A clip was played of one Proposition 8 supporter: “The judge has imposed his own agenda upon the voters and the children and the parents of California.” On Today, legal correspondent Pete Williams noted: “But opponents of gay marriage, who supported Proposition 8, denounced the ruling and began preparing to fight back.” Supporter Randy Thomasson explained: “The judge has shut the Constitution, imposed his own agenda. He’s made a lot of people happy in the gay community in San Francisco, but he is the most dangerous type of judge in America.”   The Early Show report by correspondent Priya David-Clemens only featured a couple brief sound bites of gay marriage opponents in “outright disbelief” of the ruling, but no specific criticisms of the judge being biased. In contrast, three sound bites in favor of the ruling were featured. Of the three network morning shows, only Good Morning America noted that Judge Walker was himself openly gay. Introducing the segment, co-host George Stephanopoulos mentioned: “The judge, Vaughn R. Walker, a Republican first nominated for the bench by Ronald Reagan, he is also openly gay.” Both the Early Show and Today skipped over that detail.      Following David-Clemens’s Early Show report, co-host Harry Smith discussed Judge Walker’s decision with legal correspondent Jan Crawford, who proclaimed: …this is a devastating opinion for opponents of same-sex marriage. 136 pages, he has 80 findings of fact that basically amount not only to a defense of same-sex marriage but to a defense of gay people. He says same-sex couples are identical to straight couples and that religious beliefs that homosexually is a sin harms gays and lesbians. On point after point after point he knocks down all of the arguments that were put forth by opponents of same-sex marriage and says gays and lesbians have a fundamental right to marriage under the constitution, just like straight people do. Smith then wondered if Walker’s ruling amounted to settled law: “…there are plenty of people still opposed who want to mount lawsuits against it. What kind of a chance do they have with – is this enough to set a precedent?” Crawford responded: “If this ruling stands and is affirmed by higher courts, it could affect the laws in 45 states, forcing them to redefine how they look at marriage…this is really the first federal court test and it could definitely, as it goes forward, set a precedent that will affect every person across the country.” Raising the possibility of the case going to the U.S. Supreme Court, Smith asked: “[if] the Supreme Court stays on the same side, based on the legal issues that you just outlined, will same-sex marriage become the law of the land?” Only then did Crawford acknowledge the temporary nature of the ruling: “Now, if the court agrees with that, absolutely. But that is a huge gamble that – the people who brought this case are making a huge gamble the Supreme Court is ready to do that. You know, it’s pretty closely divided, Harry, as you well know, up there.”

See the rest here:
CBS ‘Early Show’ Ignores Accusations of Bias Against Judge Behind Prop 8 Ruling

‘I Feel Like I Don’t Live In America:’ The Best Worst Prop 8 Reactions

Yesterday, a federal judge ruled that Proposition 8 — the voter initiative that amended the California Constitution to define marriage as heterosexual — is unconstitutional. The usual pro-Prop 8, anti-gay marriage suspects began hollering almost immediately. Here, the best of the best (or worst, depending on how you look at it): The Founding Fathers Would Be Shocked From the chairman of National Organization for Marriage, or NOM: Here we have an openly gay (according to the San Francisco Chronicle) federal judge substituting his views for those of the American people and of our Founding Fathers who I promise you would be shocked by courts that imagine they have the right to put gay marriage in our Constitution. Shocked, probably. But $10 says the Founding Fathers would also be shocked by women wearing pants, a black man becoming president and cable news. But The Judge Is Gay From the president of the American Family Association: It's also extremely problematic that Judge Walker is a practicing homosexual himself. He should have recused himself from this case, because his judgment is clearly compromised by his own sexual proclivity. The fundamental issue here is whether homosexual conduct, with all its physical and psychological risks, should be promoted and endorsed by society. That's why the people and elected officials accountable to the people should be setting marriage policy, not a black-robed tyrant whose own lifestyle choices make it impossible to believe he could be impartial. His situation is no different than a judge who owns a porn studio being asked to rule on an anti-pornography statute. He'd have to recuse himself on conflict of interest grounds, and Judge Walker should have done that. This Will Be Dangerous When We Have A Lesbian On The Supreme Court From former House Speaker Newt Gingrich: Today's notorious decision also underscores the importance of the Senate vote tomorrow on the nomination of Elena Kagan to the Supreme Court because judges who oppose the American people are a growing threat to our society. In other words, “cough cough Kagan's totally gay cough.” What Next? Is Jesus Unconstitutional? From Sen. Jim DeMint (R-SC): Today's wrongful court decision is another attempt to impose a secular immorality on the American people who keep voting to preserve traditional marriage. added by: TimALoftis

The Prop 8 Judge Is Gay, and It Doesn’t Matter

Once upon a time, gay activists hated Vaughn Walker for legally squashing the Gay Olympics. But this weekend The San Francisco Chronicle definitively revealed that the Prop. 8 judge is gay. Judge Walker’s sexual identity has overlapped with his public life before. Appointed to the bench by the first President Bush in 1989, he spent his early career battling the perception that he was anti-gay after he represented the U.S. Olympic Committee in a trademark infringement battle with San Francisco’s Gay Olympics. Nancy Pelosi accused him of “insensitivity.” (Putting a lien on the Gay Olympics’ AIDS-ravaged leader during the man’s dying days didn’t help.) Walker had “no comment” on Chronicle political gossip duo Matier and Ross ‘ question about his sexuality, but did note that “Life is full of irony” when they brought up the Gay Olympics debacle. Matier and Ross’ headline is both report and conclusion: ” Judge Being Gay a Nonissue During Prop. 8 Trial .” It’d be cool if the relative quiet on Walker’s orientation was because America recognized that Judge Walker’s sex life doesn’t affect his job. ( Minimal MSM and right-wing pickup so far .) As SF Weekly points out , even calling the Chronicle ‘s article an “outing” is misleading: Walker has never tried to hide his orientation, and it’s pretty common for judges to keep their personal lives away from the spotlight, in the interest of perceived impartiality. But I tend to think a slightly funnier explanation for the relative quiet—that the right-wing bullies who usually drive a story like this forward simply don’t read the San Francisco Chronicle or gay blogs like Queerty , which has been reporting this story for months—is at play. Recall that six months ago right-wingers feared Sonia Sotomayor incapable of fairly judging white men. When it comes to minority judges, plenty of people are still idiots. Hard-right hangouts like The Corner are just warming up so the wingnut freak-out machine still has time. The most cynical guess would be that the right measured the risks and calculated that luck of the draw (which is how the Prop. 8 trial landed in Walker’s courtroom) is still in their favor. Here’s why: A Republican appointment, Walker is believed to lean conservative, albeit by way of libertarianism, which could make him gay-friendlier. Almost everyone agrees that, after 21 years on the bench, Walker is fair. There is no reason to believe he’d change now—if anything, the Gay Olympics debacle demonstrated an imperviousness to public pressure. (And resisting the urge to scream But I am one in Nancy Pelosi’s face was probably hard.) If he rules against Prop. 8, the homophobes will have their big, nasty appeal primed and ready. It goes without saying that Judge Walker’s sexuality is irrelevant. Assuming gay judges always side with other gays (or “Wise Latinas” with other Latinas) is a flawed logic that assumes neutrality lies with heterosexuals (or whites, or males). The rabbit hole of identity-based speculation is infinite (What if Judge Walker is self-hating? What if he overcompensates? What if one of the lawyers looks like his ex-boyfriend who was such a jerk , and he can’t judge fairly because he just hates that guy’s face so much? ) and pointless. As Queerty elegantly states , “Immutable characteristics do not disqualify a person from exercising justice.” Also, if you write a law that so offends an entire class of people that you cannot trust them ever to discuss it fairly, then perhaps there is something wrong with your law. SF Chron: Being Gay a Nonissue During Prop. 8 Trial SF Weekly: Chron Hardly ‘Outed’ Judge Vaughn Walker Above the Law: Prop 8 Judge May be Gay: Does It Matter? WSJ Law Blog: Prop. 8 Judge Reported Gay: What to Make of That? SF Chron: Editorial: Gay Judge Has Proven Record of Impartiality Queerty: Remember When the Gays Hated Prop 8 Judge Vaughn Waker?

Read more from the original source:
The Prop 8 Judge Is Gay, and It Doesn’t Matter